C-114/79
ECLI:EU:C:1980:124
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61979CO0114
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF T H E C O U R T OF 7 MAY 1980 1
Suzanne Fournier, née Mazière, and Others ν Commission of the European Communities
Joined Cases 114, 115, 116 and 117/79
Action for damages —Action by members of an official's family for compensation for the damage suffered arising out of unlawful conditions of employment of the official — Inadmissibility (EEC Treaty, Art. 178; Rules of Procedure, Art. 92 (1))
In Joined Cases 114, 115, 116 and 117/79
SUZANNE FOURNIER, NÉE MAZIÈRE, AUDE FOURNIER, FRANÇOIS FOURNIER AND CLOTILDE FOURNIER, represented by Edmond Lebrun, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, avocat-avoué, 34b Rue Philippe II,
applicants, ν
COMMISSION OP THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Denise Sorasio, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Robert Andersen, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of its Legal Adviser, Mario Cervino, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,
defendant,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 7. 5. 1980 — JOINED CASES'114, 115, 116 AND 117/79
THE COURT
U p o n hearing the Advocate General
makes the following:
ORDER
Facts and Issues
The applicants are the wife and three By applications lodged at the Court children of Bernard Fournier, an official Registry on 25 July 1979 the applicants in Grade A 6 of the Directorate-General commenced proceedings in which they for Development and Cooperation of the claim that the Court should, on the one Commission. Fournier joined the hand, annul the Commission's implied Commission in 1964 as a member of the decision rejecting their requests resulting auxiliary staff; he was appointed a from its failure to reply over a period of probationery official in 1973 and more than two months, and, on the established at the expiry of the other hand, order the Commission to probationary period with effect from 1 pay them compensation for the damage April 1974. which they allege they have suffered. It appears from the file that the applicants have brought their actions before the Court under Articles 175 and On 29 March 1979 Mr Fournier 215 of the EEC Treaty and that their , submitted to the Commission, pursuant claims for damages are based on the to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, a unlawful conditions of employment in request for compensation for the damage which the defendant is said to have kept he alleged he had suffered as a result of Mr Fournier for nine years. They have in the Commission's negligent conduct particular stressed that during this period arising out of the unlawful conditions of Mr Fournier remained in a state of employment in which it is alleged to complete uncertainty and was obliged to have kept him for nine years. On the sign 21 consecutive contracts before same date the applicants submitted a being appointed an established official; request to the Commission under Articles furthermore he was humiliated by having 175 and 215 of the EEC Treaty and to submit to downgrading and was in under Article 1382 of the Belgian Civil addition subjected to annoyances of all Code, alleging that they had suffered kinds. These objectionable actions on the personal injury as a result of the part of the Commission had very Commission's negligent behaviour injurious effects on Mr Fournier's towards Mr Fournier. The Commission family; in particular they had serious rejected these requests on 1 August 1979. repercussions on the applicants' health.
TOURNIER ν COMMISSION
Decision
Under Article 175 of the EEC Treaty a natural person may complain to the Court of Justice that an institution of the Community has failed to address to • him any act other than a recommendation or an opinion. In these cases the applicants have not stated what act, within the meaning of that article, the Commission has failed to address to them.
According to Article 178 of the Treaty the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for damage provided for in the second paragraph of Article 215 concerning the non-contractual liability of the Community. These actions, however, are for compensation for damage alleged to have been caused by the conduct of an institution affecting the progress of the career of one of its officials or servants, even though the latter has been in a position to avail himself of the opportunities afforded by the Treaty to challenge any decision of the institution concerned which was intended to, or in fact did, place or keep him in unlawful conditions of employment and, if need be, for this purpose to bring an action before the Court. It would be contrary to the system of legal remedies adopted by Community law for rectifying irregularities in conditions of employment to concede that by a misuse of procedure an action for damages based on the same facts may be brought by the members of the family of an official or other servant acting on their own behalf, even if they allege that they have personally suffered damage in this connexion. These actions do not therefore fall within the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty.
In these circumstances the Court plainly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the applications. Consequently it is necessary for the Court to apply Article 92 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and to declare of its own motion without opening the oral procedure that the actions are inadmissible.
Costs
Under Articles 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful they must be ordered to pay the costs.
ORDER OF 7. 5. 1980 — JOINED CASES 114, 115, 116 AND 117/79
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders as follows :
1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicants shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 7 May 1980.
A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher Registrar President